NHL talks review process at annual GM meetings

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — The NHL’s operations department pulled back the curtain on their process assessing how and why on-ice calls are overturned — or not — for the league’s general managers to kick off their annual meetings on Monday.

The 32 team executives gathered at Eau Palm Beach to hear from a panel of league hockey ops members who step into action when there’s a coach’s challenge for goalie interference or offside. The group reviewed several examples from this season and solicited manager feedback on whether they agreed with the original call or the extra layer of assessment.

Primarily, though, the goal was to provide clarity on what goes on between the refs — reviewing those infamous iPads in the penalty box — and the league figures connecting them with more information.

“When you get on the headset [in the Situation Room], the first thing you’re asking the referee when you give him the overhead [view], is, ‘is there anything you see here you didn’t see in real time,'” said Stephen Wolkom, the NHL’s senior vice president and director of officiating. “He’s going to [look] and be blunt. And that’s a tell right there on where we’re going to go [with our decision].”

Wolkom, along with Kris King, senior vice president of hockey operations and Colin Campbell, executive vice president and director of hockey operations, explained what their group is looking at when it comes to dissecting a potentially incorrect call. There’s a checklist of sorts they’ll go through on a goaltender interference question that serves, ideally, to be a consistent baseline if a goal is to be called back.

The league is looking at whether the contact from a player is deliberate or incidental, where it happened on the ice (in the goalie’s blue paint or out in white ice), if the goalie had a chance to reset, was able to do his job, and if the actions by the offensive or defensive player led to any part of the contact. And of course, there’s whether the referee sees anything differently on the provided replay that they missed in real time.

It’s often a fine line deciding which way the challenge goes. Perhaps that’s why the NHL has seen an uptick in coach’s challenges for goalie interference this season, rising to 105 already from 88 last year.

Campbell has one theory on that stat.

“There’s been maybe 10-15 really dumb challenges,” said Campbell. “We look at each other and go, ‘What are they doing? This is crazy by them.'”

Goal scoring is at a premium, though. And getting into a goaltender’s face while attempting to redirect pucks in front of the net is often the cost of netting one. So how can the NHL ensure goalies have a chance to stand tall without inhibiting a player’s right to try and beat him?

That’s at the forefront of the league’s decision-makers when they’re breaking down a challenge.

“We told the goalies we’d protect them in the blue,” said Rod Pasma, vice president of hockey operations. “How do we tell the position players when they’re trying to score and stay out of the blue, and they’re tipping a puck, and make a contact [with the goalie in white ice], [that they are] doing it wrong? That comes into it as well … and then, how much is the contact? Is it extreme? Is it relevant?”

All of that first falls on referees to answer. Those on the outside bemoan how long video review can take and the way challenges slow down a game’s flow. But communication between those eyes in the sky and the ones at ice level is key to getting a correct call. Usually once the refs have seen new angles, they’ll be able to tell King and company if the coach was right to question their verdict.

Nuance is everything, though.

“The goaltender has to be afforded the chance to make the save,” said goaltending supervisor Kay Whitmore. “But we have to be careful on saying whether the goalie can make the save or not. [Former NHL referee] Danny O’Halloran got an earful from Jonathan Quick one time saying, ‘how the [expletive] do you know I’m not going to make that save?'”

In addition to talking coach’s challenges, the league went over examples of unique offside reviews. They emphasized to the team execs that part of the process includes questioning where the puck entered the zone and whether they can clearly see where the puck is before issuing the offside challenge.

Missed game stoppages — for hand passes and tipping pucks into the net above “normal shoulder height” — were also on the agenda.

The league’s goal was to emphasize again the consistency of their approach in making one call or another — not that they want to be influencing the outcome of a game if they don’t have to.

“The call on the ice is [most] important in every one of these [situations],” said Campbell.